Paz Marverde Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 On 14/2/2018 at 4:39 PM, Steve Thomas said: He says he talked to the owner of the film, H.L. Hunt. Hunt supposedly bought it from Zapruder. THAT H. L. Hunt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) On 2/15/2018 at 3:55 PM, Rick McTague said: Excellent point, Ray. Unlike the others who described what they saw in the "other" Z film, Rather certainly had a personal/corporate reason to not tell the truth. This event - covering the assassination - launched his career in the MSM. The proof of his obedient capacity to lie to the public in this role was provided when he lied about GWB's National Guard record. The others had nothing to gain by lying about what they saw which leads me to believe they were being truthful in their accounts; none of them describe JFK's head being violently thrust forward. Trusting the MSM is to trust the machine behind it. There are two ways to interpret Rather's interpretation of what he saw. 1. He saw a "different" film meaning the one he saw was the one that shows Kennedy's head go downward from a rear shot - just like he described it on live TV. For argument sake, this means that the other film that so many people here think exists is out there somewhere. There WAS no other film. 2. He saw the film as we have seen it today - where Kennedy's head and body are slammed back onto the seat from a frontal shot hitting him in the temple. But after Rather sees this film he's told to - or decides on his own - to NOT mention that part of the film that he's seeing on live TV. In other words, he deceives the public by not describing a frontal shot that would have caused Kennedy's head and body to slam backward and to the left (as Wecht described it). I happen to believe #2 is the correct interpretation because: 1. It's far more easier to control the message at this point. Rather's broadcast was AFTER Oswald had been murdered, which means he'd now never receive a fair trial to what happened 2. Many film alterationists here (Josephs and Davidson to name a few) think you can just wave a magic wand and presto -- the film would be magically altered. But WHY was it altered? The film SHOWS conspiracy if you believe that Kennedy being slammed onto the back of the seat is a result of a frontal shot. So think about it - these world-class government conspirators went through all of this trouble of masking out things, trimming frames, splicing the film together...and they leave the most crucial part IN THE FILM showing conspiracy. They're obviously the dumbest conspiracy planners in world history LOL 3. They KNEW that the Z film would never be shown to the public in its entirety - only a frame here and there in LIFE magazine - until 1975. So suppressing the evidence was another very easy way to control the message. But now as you're seeing here, Josephs is going to ramble on with his confusing and confused image combinations, combining frames and trying to show HOW it was done without EVER explaining WHY it was done. In his mind, it was because because the government is evil. LOL Edited February 16, 2018 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Michael Walton said: 2. Many film alterationists here (Josephs and Davidson to name a few) think you can just wave a magic wand and presto -- the film would be magically altered. But WHY was it altered? The film SHOWS conspiracy if you believe that Kennedy being slammed onto the back of the seat is a result of a frontal shot. So think about it - these world-class government conspirators went through all of this trouble of masking out things, trimming frames, splicing the film together...and they leave the most crucial part IN THE FILM showing conspiracy. They're obviously the dumbest conspiracy planners in world history LOL How could JFK slam into the back of the seat before the 2nd headshot was even fired? .71 seconds after the extant z313 shot. Do the math. Did the big brain explosion at Z313 come from the first of two shots or the second of two? I suggest reading the SS agents descriptions in the followup car. The concept which you fail to understand is "two shots melded into one". Neither of which came from the sniper's nest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: Neither of which came from the sniper's nest. I agree with you 100%. I, too, believe that no shots were fired from the fake sniper's nest. I remember seeing that illustration years ago - always found it interesting. BUT the shots did NOT come from the pavilion like you think they do on your other thread. Do you really think these world-class conspirators would have been that stupid to have taken that huge of a risk firing over spectators' heads, exposing the entire plot? With no clear getaway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 Give me a break. Here's a collage for orientation purposes. World class conspirators would have you believe the shots came from the TSBD and the North Knoll. Would you like to list who ran to the South Knoll and the Carport looking for shooters? What spectator heads were fired over? Go back and re-read so you can pass along the correct information about the path of the bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 On 2/15/2018 at 10:48 AM, Michael Walton said: And amazingly David Josephs agrees with me on this and also said Chris D is wrong. Enough... If you are going to us my name or anything you claim I said.... Post the link.... What I said, in jest, was " but Chris, the shot comes from the front " .... You don't know Chris nor do you have the first idea what he is saying... But here you are sticking foot in mouth none the less.... So quick to jump to conclusions without first looking.... Stick to your own disastrous presentation of your own thoughts.. Last thing I need is association with your terribly narrow-minded POV and school yard mentality... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 36 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Enough... If you are going to us my name or anything you claim I said.... Post the link.... What I said, in jest, was " but Chris, the shot comes from the front " .... You don't know Chris nor do you have the first idea what he is saying... But here you are sticking foot in mouth none the less.... So quick to jump to conclusions without first looking.... Stick to your own disastrous presentation of your own thoughts.. Last thing I need is association with your terribly narrow-minded POV and school yard mentality... David, did you my PM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: Enough... If you are going to us my name or anything you claim I said.... Post the link.... What I said, in jest, was " but Chris, the shot comes from the front " .... You don't know Chris nor do you have the first idea what he is saying... But here you are sticking foot in mouth none the less.... So quick to jump to conclusions without first looking.... Stick to your own disastrous presentation of your own thoughts.. Last thing I need is association with your terribly narrow-minded POV and school yard mentality... You have to be one of the most dishonest people on this board, David. Here's what you said: But he was shot from the front Chris.... And there were people between your shooter and JFK... if you're talking just past the pole. ?? NOWHERE in that post do I detect anything "...in jest." Rather than honestly admit that you said this - and to show agreement with my claim that this "theory" is absolutely bullxxxx - you're now claiming that you said this "in jest??!!" What in God's name does me not knowing Chris Davidson have to do with pointing out silly claims like this? OMFG! How can you expect ANYONE on this board or anywhere for that matter to take anything you say on here seriously? If this doesn't take the cake for being dishonest on here I don't know what else would! And don't tell me enough. This is a forum where anyone - not just you, Chris and other "everything is a conspiracy" folks - can post and express their thoughts and rebuttals. You need to get down from your Kennedys and King high horse and face it that you do not know everything about this case and also be a little more honest when people you don't like point things out that go against yours and others' silly theories. Edited February 17, 2018 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) Mr. W, That was the 2nd post to his first... Where he only posted images. How long have you been working with Chris? How well do you know him ? What you don't and can't understand is that there are intellectual friendships here advancing what we understand... How long have you played devil's advocate in friendship with Chris... Oh, wait. You condemn the MATH RULES thread... Too far beyond your reach. As anyone who can follow the thread easily sees, Chris explains... And it makes very good sense.... See where a shot traces back to if Altgens there is hit with blood. Then you can go back to sleep Altgens says in his testimony... There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head Edited April 12, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 21 hours ago, Paz Marverde said: THAT H. L. Hunt? Paz, Yes, that H.L. Hunt. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paz Marverde Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said: Paz, Yes, that H.L. Hunt. Steve Thomas OMG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now